Andrew D. Nordin

The self: Your own worst enemy? A test of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis

The self-invoking trigger hypothesis was proposed by Wulf and Lewthwaite [Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Effortless motor learning? An external focus of attention enhances movement effectiveness and efficiency. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in attention and action (pp. 75–101). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press] as a mechanism underlying the robust effect of attentional focus on motor learning and performance. One component of this hypothesis, relevant beyond the attentional focus effect, suggests that causing individuals to access their self-schema will negatively impact their learning and performance of a motor skill. The purpose of the present two studies was to provide an initial test of the performance and learning aspects of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis by asking participants in one group to think about themselves between trial blocks—presumably activating their self-schema—to compare their performance and learning to that of a control group. In Experiment 1, participants performed 2 blocks of 10 trials on a throwing task. In one condition, participants were asked between blocks to think about their past throwing experience. While a control group maintained their performance across blocks, the self groups performance was degraded on the second block. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to practice a wiffleball hitting task on two separate days. Participants returned on a third day to perform retention and transfer tests without the self-activating manipulation. Results indicated that the self group learned the hitting task less effectively than the control group. The findings reported here provide initial support for the self-invoking trigger hypothesis.

Neuromechanical synergies in single-leg landing reveal changes in movement control

Our purpose was to examine changes in single-leg landing biomechanics and movement control following alterations in mechanical task demands via external load and landing height. We examined lower-extremity kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic (EMG) adjustments, as well as changes in movement control from neuromechanical synergies using separate principal component analyses (PCA). Nineteen healthy volunteers (15M, 4F, age: 24.3±4.9y, mass: 78.5±14.7kg, height: 1.73±0.08m) were analyzed among 9 single-leg drop landing trials in each of 6 experimental conditions (3 load and 2 landing height) computed as percentages of subject bodyweight (BW, BW+12.5%, BW+25%) and height (H12.5% & H25%). Condition order was counterbalanced, including: 1.) BW·H12.5, 2.) BW+12.5·H12.5, 3.) BW+25·H12.5, 4.) BW·H25, 5.) BW+12.5·H25, 6.) BW+25·H25. Lower-extremity sagittal joint angles and moments (hip, knee, & ankle), vertical ground reaction force (GRFz), and electrical muscle activity (gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, vastus medialis, medial gastrocnemius, & tibialis anterior muscles), were analyzed in each trial. Biomechanical adjustments and neuromechanical synergies were assessed using PCA. Subjects reduced effective landing height through segmental configuration adjustments at ground contact, extending at the hip and ankle joints with greater load and landing height (p⩽0.028 and p⩽0.013, respectively), while using greater medial gastrocnemius pre-activation with greater load (p⩽0.006). Dimension reduction was observed under greater mechanical task demands, compressing and restructuring synergies among patterns of muscle activation, applied loads, and segmental configurations. These results provide insight into movement control and potential injury mechanisms in landing activities.

Classifying performer strategies in drop landing activities

ABSTRACT Our purpose was to use group and single-case methods to examine inter-individual variability in the context of factors related to landing injuries. We tested the load accommodation strategies model (An exploration of load accommodation strategies during walking with extremity-carried weights. Human Movement Science, 35, 17–29) using landing impulse, revealing pre-landing strategies following height and external load manipulations. Ten healthy volunteers (8 male, 2 female, 24.0 ± 1.4 years, 1.72 ± 0.06 m, 73.5 ± 8.7 kg) were analysed across 12 trials in each of three load conditions (100% body weight [BW], 110% BW, 120% BW) from two landing heights (30 cm, 60 cm). Landing impulse (BW ∙ s) was computed for each participant-condition-trial, using impulse ratios (unit-less; BW ∙ s/BW ∙ s) to evaluate load accommodation strategies between adjacent load conditions (110%/100%, 120%/110%) at each landing height. Load accommodation strategy classifications were based on 95% confidence intervals (CIs) containing mechanically predicted impulse ratios (1.10 and 1.09 for 110/100% BW and 120/110% BW, respectively; α = 0.05). Mean group impulse ratios matched and exceeded predicted impulse ratios. Single-case analyses revealed a range of individual landing strategies that might be overlooked during group analyses, possibly uncovering individuals at greater risk of injury during landing activities.

Three-dimensional impact kinetics with foot-strike manipulations during running

Background Lack of an observable vertical impact peak in fore/mid-foot running has been suggested as a means of reducing lower extremity impact forces, although it is unclear if impact characteristics exist in other axes. The purpose of the investigation was to compare three-dimensional (3D) impact kinetics among foot-strike conditions in over-ground running using instantaneous loading rate–time profiles. Methods Impact characteristics were assessed by identifying peak loading rates in each direction (medial–lateral (ML), anterior–posterior (AP), vertical, and 3D resultant) following foot-strike instructions (fore-foot, mid-foot, subtle heel, and obvious heel strike). Kinematic and kinetic data were analyzed among 9 male participants in each foot-strike condition. Results Loading rate peaks were observed in each direction and foot-strike condition, differing in magnitude by direction (3D resultant and vertical > AP > ML, p ≤ 0.031) and foot-strike: ML (fore-foot and mid-foot strike > obvious heel strike, p ≤ 0.032), AP (fore-foot and mid-foot strikes > subtle-heel and obvious heel strikes, p ≤ 0.023). In each direction, the first loading rate peak occurred later during heel strike running relative to fore-foot (p ≤ 0.019), with vertical and 3D resultant impact durations exceeding shear (ML and AP, p ≤ 0.007) in each condition. Conclusion Loading rate–time assessment identified contrasting impact characteristics in each direction and the 3D resultant following foot-strike manipulations, with potential implications for lower extremity structures in running.

Lower extremity variability changes with drop-landing height manipulations

ABSTRACT Landing is a common lower extremity injury mechanism in sport, with potential connections to movement control accessed through variability measures. We investigated intra-subject lower extremity variability changes following drop-landing height manipulations using standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) among lower extremity peak sagittal joint angles and moments. Fourteen healthy participants completed five drop-landing trials from five heights 20%, 60%, 100%, 140% and 180% maximum vertical jump height (MVJH). Peak joint angles and moments increased with greater landing height (p < 0.001), highlighting inter-joint differences (Flexion: Knee > Hip > Ankle, p < 0.001; Extensor Moment: Hip > Knee > Ankle, in excess of 60% MVJH, p < 0.05). Kinematic and kinetic SD increased with variable magnitudes, while CV decreased at greater landing heights (p ≤ 0.016). Decreased relative variability under greater task demands may underscore non-contact injury mechanisms from repetitive loading of identical structures.

Single-leg landing neuromechanical data following load and land height manipulations.

Lower extremity sagittal kinematic and kinetic data are summarized alongside electrical muscle activities during single-leg landing trials completed in contrasting external load and landing height conditions. Nineteen subjects were analyzed during 9 landing trials in each of 6 experimental conditions computed as percentages of subject anthropometrics (bodyweight: BW and subject height: H; BW, BW+12.5%, BW+25%, and H12.5%, H25%). Twelve lower extremity variables (sagittal hip, knee, ankle angles and moments, vertical ground reaction force (GRFz), gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, vastus medials, medial gastrocnemius, and tibialis anterior muscles) were assessed using separate principal component analyses (PCA). Variable trends across conditions were summarized in “Neuromechanical synergies in single-leg landing reveal changes in movement control. Human Movement Science” (Nordin and Dufek, 2016) [1], revealing changes in landing biomechanics and movement control.

Implications of Increased Lower Extremity Movement Variability on Fall Susceptibility at Increased Stride Lengths During Locomotion

The purpose of this examination was to explore the effects of stride length (SL) perturbations on walking gait, relative to preferred walking (PW) and running (PR), via lower extremity range of motion (ROM) variability. ROM variability at the hip, knee, and ankle joints, in the sagittal and frontal planes were used in evaluating motor control of gait, where increased gait variability has been previously implicated in fall susceptibly.Nine participants (5 male, 4 female; mean age 23.11±3.55 years, height 1.72±0.18m, mass 72.66±14.37kg) free from previous lower extremity injury were examined. Kinematic data were acquired using a 12-camera system (Vicon MX T40-S; 200Hz). Data filtering and interpolation included a low pass, 4th order, Butterworth filter (15Hz cutoff) and cubic spline. Five gait trials were completed for PW and PR, with subsequent SL manipulations computed as a percentage of leg length (LL). SL perturbations included 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140% of LL.Kinematic analysis involved one stride (two steps) during each gait trial, assessing ROM at the hip, knee, and ankle from heel contact to toe-off for each limb, in the sagittal and frontal planes. Variability was expressed using coefficient of variation (%). Comparisons were made using 3×7 (joint × stride condition) mixed model ANOVAs, with repeated measures on stride condition (α = 0.05), using SPSS 20.0.Differences in lower extremity ROM variability were detected among stride conditions in the frontal and sagittal planes (F[3.185,76.451] = 3.004, p = .033; F[4.595,110.279] = 2.834, p = .022, respectively). Greater ROM variability was observed at, and in excess of SLs of 100%LL relative to PW in the frontal plane (PW: 9.2±4.2%; 100%LL: 11.8±3.6%, p = .014; 120%LL: 13.5±5.8%, p = .046; 140%LL: 13.8±6.5%, p = .016), and between SLs of 80%LL and 120%LL in the sagittal plane (4.9±3.0%; 7.8±4.7%, p = .046, respectively). From this, PW appeared to occur within SLs of 60%LL to 80%LL, while SLs exceeding 100%LL resulted in increased lower extremity ROM variability. This may have consequences for fall susceptibility at increased stride lengths during walking. PR did not reveal significant variability differences (p>.05) compared to walking conditions in either the sagittal or frontal plane (7.5±5.0%; 12.8±7.7%, respectively), suggesting that running represents a separate, but stable gait pattern. In the sagittal plane, ROM variability was significantly lower at the hip (3.9±1.5%), relative to the ankle (8.4±1.6%, p<.001) and knee joints (7.4±2.6%, p = .001), suggesting that gait control may be more active at the ankle and knee joints. Future investigations should examine kinetic changes in gait when altering stride length.Copyright